United States v. William Spruill , 491 F. App'x 437 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 12-4386
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff – Appellee,
    v.
    WILLIAM WALTER SPRUILL, a/k/a Pooh Pot,
    Defendant – Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City.     Malcolm J.
    Howard, Senior District Judge. (2:11-cr-00033-H-1)
    Submitted:   December 20, 2012            Decided:   December 26, 2012
    Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
    Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellant.   Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer
    P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States
    Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    William Walter Spruill appeals his eighty-seven month
    sentence imposed after he pled guilty to one count each of:
    conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute
    twenty-eight grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. § 846
        (2006);          possession      with    intent     to    distribute     a
    quantity of cocaine base, in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a)(1)
    (2006); possession with intent to distribute twenty-eight grams
    or more of cocaine base, in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a)(1)
    (2006); and possession of a firearm after being convicted of a
    misdemeanor      crime      of     domestic       violence,    in    violation       of   
    18 U.S.C. §§ 922
    (g)(9), 924 (2006).                     Spruill’s sole argument on
    appeal   is    that        his     sentence    is    substantively         unreasonable.
    Finding no error, we affirm.
    After United States v. Booker, 
    543 U.S. 220
     (2005), we
    review   a     sentence          for    reasonableness,       using        an    abuse    of
    discretion standard of review.                    Gall v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 51 (2007).        The first step in this review requires the court
    to   ensure    that    the       district     court       committed    no       significant
    procedural error.           United States v. Evans, 
    526 F.3d 155
    , 160-61
    (4th Cir. 2008).           If, and only if, this court finds the sentence
    procedurally reasonable can the court consider the substantive
    reasonableness        of     the       sentence    imposed.         United       States   v.
    Carter, 
    564 F.3d 325
    , 328 (4th Cir. 2009).
    2
    Spruill       raises     no    challenge        to        the   procedural
    reasonableness     of    his   sentence.        We      thus    presume      that    the
    eighty-seven     month    sentence,       which      was   at        the   bottom    of
    Spruill’s Guidelines range, is reasonable.                 See United States v.
    Mendoza-Mendoza, 
    597 F.3d 212
    , 217 (4th Cir. 2010) (“[W]e may
    and do treat on appeal a district court’s decision to impose a
    sentence    within       the      Guidelines       range        as     presumptively
    reasonable.”).       Although Spruill asserts that he should have
    been sentenced below his Guidelines range, we conclude that the
    district   court     properly     exercised       its    discretion        to    reject
    Spruill’s arguments in mitigation.              See Evans, 
    526 F.3d at 162
    (recognizing that deference to a district court’s sentence is
    required because the “sentencing judge is in a superior position
    to find facts and judge their import under § 3553(a) in the
    individual case”).
    Because Spruill has failed to rebut the presumption
    this court affords his within-Guidelines sentence, we affirm the
    district   court’s      judgment.        We   dispense     with       oral      argument
    because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
    in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
    decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-4386

Citation Numbers: 491 F. App'x 437

Judges: King, Duncan, Hamilton

Filed Date: 12/26/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024